One Million Moms, a media watch group arm of the American Family Association, has targeted this new Campbell's soup commercial featuring a real-life pair of dads feeding soup to their son:
According to 1MM, the ad is "pushing the LGBT agenda" by "glorifying this unnatural marriage." They are calling for a boycott if Campbell's does not stop airing the ad. 1MM admonishes Campbell's tactics. "Companies should advertise the quality of their products," they state. "They should not be highlighting who is attracted to whom or who sleeps with whom."
Would other commercials hold up under the same scrutiny? Let's put some commercials to the One Million Moms Test to judge whether they (a) advertise the quality of their product, or (b) highlight who is attracted to whom or who sleeps with whom.
Look at this Campbell's commercial from 1953:
It is evident that this commercial is (b) highlighting who is attracted to whom. Johnny is attracted to "the girl of his dreams" but decides he will "seek another bride." But when the girl's mother advises serving Campbell's, Johnny returns and marries the girl! The blatant sexuality of this commercial is astonishing. How did they allow this to air back in the 1950s? There is a quick mention of the soup's quality at the end, but the bulk of the commercial is pushing a soup-based, sexual agenda.
Is it just Campbell's? Or are other soup commercials pushing a progressive, sexual-charged cause? Let's take a look at Progresso. First of all, Progresso sounds like 'progressive,' which is most likely offensive to the 1MM group. If we take a look at their advertising, such as "The Proposal" from a few years ago, we can see that Progresso, too, is (b) highlighting sexual attraction and not advertising the quality of their product. In this commercial, a woman believes a man in her office wants to marry her because he has served her a bowl of Italian wedding soup. She believes the man wants her "to live in his arms forever" and her heart is audibly pounding. The woman is excited, some might say sexually aroused. Disgusting.
What about other popular commercials? Progressive has mounted a series of popular ads featuring the quirky Flo character. Let's ignore the fact that the product is called "Progressive" and that Flo is obviously some sort of word play of menstrual flow. Instead, let's examine other ways that the company is pushing a progressive agenda. In "Flo's Family," we are introduced to Flo's parents and siblings. Yes, that's right - parents and siblings! Do you realize what that means? Flo and her brother and sister are products of the sexual intimacy between her two parents! This advertisement is flaunting (b) who is attracted to whom! There is not even a mention of the quality of the product. And, to make matters worse, all of the characters are portrayed by the same actress! I don't know what that means, but it seems unsettling. 1MM must agree that these portrayals should not be viewed by small children.
State Farm, another insurance company, has several questionable ads. Take the popular Road Trip commercial with the comic line "Six callers ahead of us, Jimmy." This ad features a man, his son and his mother. The mother had sex to produce the man, and the man had sex to produce the son. Pushing this sort of sexual agenda to sell insurance is downright loathsome. Or, how about the company's "It's Jake from State Farm" commercial? In it, a man is seen with his wife in the middle of the night (3:11 a,m. to be exact). A man and his wife?! This is (b) highlighting who is attracted to whom -- the wife is even jealous of the phone call the husband is making! It has nothing to do with (a) the quality of the product.
Have you seen the new Burger King campaign for chicken fries, called Pregnant? In it, a chicken announces that she is pregnant with French Fries' baby! Where do I begin?! This is definitely a case of (b) highlighting a chicken having sex with a potato, or bestiality. Or should we call it vegetablality? No matter what it is, there is no mention of the product's quality. The ad is repugnant.
An ad like this is a flagrant and shameless plug for inappropriate sexuality. But there are other, more subtle ads that are equally damaging. Take Matthew McConaughey's Lincoln commercial, I Just Liked It. On the surface, it appears that the commercial is (a) proving the quality of the product because of Mr. McConaughey's endorsement. But you must read between the lines here. McConaughey's statement that he has been driving a Lincoln, not because it was "cool" or to "make a statement," but rather, because he "just liked it." This is clearly promoting a homosexual agenda. We cannot go around doing things just because we "like" it. What kind of message is that? Perhaps if McConaughey had said that he did it because "that's the way the Lord likes it according to the Bible," then it would be more acceptable.
Thanks, 1MM for opening our eyes to the dangers of the advertising world.